On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:59:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:59:01 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:50:03 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > However on the same host if you do:
> > >
> > > dnf install gtk3-devel.i686
> > >
> > > then there's a lot missing before you can compile a 32 bit Gtk3
> > > application[2].
> >
> > There were always missing many %{?_isa} in BuildRequires, I was filing many of
> > them, got some fixed. But now it is even forbidden to use them:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_and_.25.7B_isa.7D
>
> This is about explicit and automatic Requires, _not_ BuildRequires.
I was talking from a higher point of view. Yes, the %{?_isa} would be needed
in Requires in OP and I was filing such %{?_isa} Bugs for Requires:
glibc-devel: Missing %{?_isa} for Requires: libgcc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289356
[...]
Although I was filing even BuildRequires:
python: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773708
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773708
This is sure a stupid way as those Bugs could be detected automatically.
The point was that these two issues are very related:
%{?_isa} in BuildRequires: commonly not present + now forbidden
%{?_isa} in *-devel Requires: commonly not present
There is an implication:
missing %{?_isa} in *-devel Requires => %{?_isa} in BuildRequires is useless
And I claim that in this current state fixing the %{?_isa} in *-devel Requires
has only marginal impact. It can only make possible to multi-arch build
non-rpm packages (or rpm packages in non-rpm way) - that is you need to
specify all the "dnf install FOO-devel.i686" build requirements by hand as the
%{?_isa} in BuildRequires must not be present in the *.spec file now.
And I was suggesting it makes more sense to me to give it up and use mock.
Jan
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
